[realtalk_sp]

> I would say that death+reproduction is a better solution to preserving genes than immortality.

It's just the solution nature came up with. It's also optimal at a population level and far less so at the organism level.

Again: it is strictly preferable (by a very wide philosophical margin) to exist than to not exist. Of course, anyone who believes otherwise would be welcome to not participate in the concept of biological immortality.

[lliamander]

> It's just the solution nature came up with. It's also optimal at a population level and far less so at the organism level.

My point is that what is optimal for the organism is different than what is optimal for it's genes, and that trying to derive the biological purpose based on the "desire" of our genes is invalid (or at least, it does not imply that our purpose is to continue existing as individual organisms).

> Again: it is strictly preferable (by a very wide philosophical margin) to exist than to not exist.

Agreed, which is why I think religious pursuits are also perfectly rational. If there is some eternal, transcendent reality outside of the material world, and we have a chance of participating in that reality, it is preferable to do so.

I hold nothing against those who would wish to extend human life. My critique was just regarding what I understood to be your chain of reasoning from genetic imperative to biological purpose.

[realtalk_sp]

I think the nuance of what I was implying got lost there. It seems likely there is no inherent purpose to human life and that we're simply an accidental byproduct of the natural laws of our reality.

Yet the closest identifiable thing we could conceivably call a "purpose" is gene propagation. I should have clarified that this isn't necessarily a "good" purpose. In fact, much of what is programmed by evolution is arguably net detrimental insofar as it is readily exploited.